The court assumed that it could only consider the terms of the contract upon its determination that a contract actually exists - the option A is correct.
The mistake that the court appears to have made in the Case Excerpt was in presuming that it could only take the terms of the contract into account after determining that a contract truly existed. According to the Statement of Law, a court may define the specific conditions of a contract after determining that one truly exists. The Statement of Law does not, however, support the idea that a court can only take a contract's provisions into account after it has been determined that a contract actually exists. The court in the case above commits the following fallacy, uses circular reasoning, and puts itself in an untenable situation.
To learn more about court click here
brainly.com/question/1232569
#SPJ4
Question
when a court has been asked to interpret the terms of a contract that may be vague or contradictory, which of the following is most correct?
A. The court assumed that it could only consider the terms of the contract upon its determination that a contract actually exists.
B. The court assumed that the only way a contract's terms could be determined is through the judicial system.
C. The court assumed that an actual contract existed with terms capable of being ascertained by the court.
D. The court assumed that, because the terms of the contract were unknown, no contract existed.
based on the text, which of the following statements would the author most likely agree with? choose 1 answer:
The stability of the United States is seriously threatened by the Articles of Confederation's lack of centralized military authority can be statements to which the author would agree.
The first constitution of the United States was the Articles of Confederation, which was in effect from 1776 until 1789. The Articles established a little central government and gave the states the lion's share of authority. The Confederation Congress was the only branch of the federal government, and each state got one vote there. Little Delaware had more political influence than populated Virginia. Measures had to receive approval from nine out of the thirteen states to pass, which was a rather strict criterion. It was much more difficult to amend the Articles themselves because all thirteen members had to agree to the modification.
The Articles also restricted the national government's ability to create an army or navy. Out of concern that there would be a standing army serving a tyrannical government, the architects of the Articles of Confederation left a significant amount of defense to the states.
To learn more about Confederation, click here:
https://brainly.com/question/11649223
#SPJ4
NOTE: The question present on the portal is incomplete. Here's the complete question:
Question: "When the Articles of Confederation were drafted, Americans had little experience of what a national government could do for them and bitter experience of what an arbitrary government could do to them. In creating a central government they were therefore more concerned with keeping it under control than with giving it the means to do its job."
-Edmund S. Morgan, The Birth of the Republic, 1763-89, 1956
Which of the following pieces of evidence would best support the author's conclusion?
What is the first thing to do before driving into a railcar?
a. Check that the rear wheels have been chocked
b. Raise the forks high enough to clear the dock plate
c. Turn on available lighting
d.) Advise dock supervisor that you are entering the trailer
Answer:
d.) Advise dock supervisor that you are entering the trailer
question a federal statute designed to stop organized crime enumerated certain activities as crimes and provided that, in addition to charging these activities as the crimes they constitute, the activities would also constitute the criminal act of intentional furtherance of the goals of organized crime. among the enumerated activities w
A federal statute designed to stop organized crime enumerated certain activities. Among the enumerated activities was the interstate distribution of cocaine. The statute's constitutionality has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Under both statutes, the defendant will be sentenced.
A federation of political entities, such as states or provinces, that cede their separate sovereignty and many functions to the federal government while keeping or reserving other, more restricted authorities results in the formation of a federal government. A defined geographic region as a result has two or more levels of governance. Federal law is the governing body of the common central government.
A law is a formally written enactment of a legislative body that, with the cooperation of other parties, controls the legal entities of a city, state, or nation. Usually, laws impose restrictions, establish rules, or demand or prohibit certain actions. As opposed to case law or precedent, which is established only by courts, and guidelines imposed by executive agencies, statutes are rules enacted by legislative bodies.
The question is incomplete. The complete question is "A federal statute designed to stop organized crime enumerated certain activities as crimes and provided that, in addition to charging these activities as the crimes they constitute, the activities would also constitute the criminal act of intentional furtherance of the goals of organized crime. Among the enumerated activities was the interstate distribution of cocaine. The statute's constitutionality has been upheld by the Supreme Court. 'The defendant was arrested by federal agents after having driven a truck containing cocaine from Florida to Illinois, where he delivered his illicit cargo as directed. At trial, the defendant is convicted of interstate distribution of cocaine in violation of federal law, and convicted of a violation of the federal statute above.' How may the defendant be sentenced?"
Learn more about Federal System here:
https://brainly.com/question/695831
#SPJ4
Identify the true statements about the role of judges under the common law legal system in the United States.
The most typical function of a judge is to explain how a law pertains to a specific circumstance. The use of statute law is common for this.
Common law judges serve as "referees" in cases, with the parties approaching the judge just to settle disputes and have a case tried. In common law regimes, judges have the authority to interpret legislative statutes and are in charge of explaining the relevant legal principles to the jury. Hence, the true statements about the role of judges under the common law legal system in the United States are:
They determine the meaning of the Constitution.They can declare void the legislation of Congress.To know more about the Constitution :
https://brainly.com/question/14453917
#SPJ4
the supreme court justices do not seem to be getting along?
Due to the fact that they may have to argue against themselves in court, The supreme court justices do not seem to be getting along.
What causes Judges not to get along with each other?The justices often interrogate each other throughout the given period after the justices have heard from each side for a total of 30 minutes. Following the open hearing, the justices have a private meeting to examine the issue. They discuss the concerns, give each other their perspectives, and finally reach a decision.
The justices do not appear to be getting along, with the exception of Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett (who appear to be enjoying their time sitting next to one another).
Read more on Supreme court justices here: https://brainly.com/question/18228641
#SPJ1
Match the types of damages awarded in breach-of-contract cases (in the left column) with their descriptions (in the right column).
Punitive damages are infrequently granted for failure to fulfill contractual commitments, and a breach of contract is just not regarded as a crime or even a tort.
The most typical remedy for a successful breach of contract lawsuit is compensatory damages. The right matching of damages awarded in breach-of-contract cases with description is :
Compensatory Damages - They are awarded to make the victim of a breach of contract "whole" in the economic sense.
Consequential Damages - They are awarded when the party breaching a contract knew that special circumstances existed that would cause additional losses to the other party if the contract were breached.
To know more about the breach of contract :
https://brainly.com/question/24259882
#SPJ4
for many years, civil service rules have provided that any member of the city's police department must serve a one-year probationary period before he or she will be considered a permanent employee. however, because the rules were enacted before the city's police academy was established, a prospective polic
A probation period is a period in which an employee is employed to test his or her performance on the suitability of a position. If an employee's performance is deemed unsatisfactory, the employer may terminate the employee's services without repercussions.
A probationer's status has been clarified in numerous judicial cases and pronouncements. The following are excerpts from a landmark Supreme Court Constitution Bench decision on the status of a probationer and his/her discharge from service:
"An appointment to a permanent post in Government service on probation means, as in the case of a person appointed by a private employer, that the servant so appointed is taken on trial. In some cases, probation may be for a set period of time, such as six months or a year, or it may be expressed simply as "on probation" with no time frame specified. Under the ordinary law of master and servant, such a probationary employment, comes to an end if the servant so appointed on trial is found unsuitable during or at the end of his probation and his service is terminated by a notice.
Learn more about Constitution from here;
https://brainly.com/question/29799909
#SPJ4
Diana is the owner of a business in the United States. Her company has purchased a warehouse in Thailand, and it is managed by Diana’s associate, who is an American citizen. The government of Thailand seizes the warehouse and all the goods stored there. Diana’s attorney informs her that the US courts cannot help her take legal action. To which law or convention is the attorney referring?
The law or convention is the attorney referring to is sovereign immunity.
According to the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity, the federal government cannot be sued without its permission. This principle stems from the notion that the sovereign or state is the ultimate authority and shouldn't be subject to the jurisdiction of another sovereign or state without its permission. According to this rule, foreign governments and their agencies are typically exempt from legal action in courts in other nations, including the United States.
In this instance, the lawyer is notifying Diana that since Thailand is a sovereign state and its government has seized the warehouse, it is not subject to legal action in American courts. The Thai government has the authority to confiscate the warehouse even if it is owned by a US firm and run by an American citizen, and US courts lack the authority to file a lawsuit against the Thai government.
Read more about sovereign immunity on:
https://brainly.com/question/14185506
#SPJ4
which of the following actions is the responsibility of the office of insurance regulation in florida?
The Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) ensures license the insurance companies to do business in Florida. It works according to the law that governs the industry and provides insurance policies with fair rates which do not discriminate against the public.
It monitors the industry market. And the regulatory functions are performed for the company admissions section, life, and health financial oversight unit market regulation unit, property, and casualty financial oversight unit in order to take off the risk of fraud and miss management.
The office provides oversight for residual markets that provide insurance to the people who can't take private markets.
To know more about insurance regulation
brainly.com/question/28216362
Which of the following actions is the responsibility of the Office of Insurance Regulation?
a. Monitoring the financial condition of all regulated insurance entities
b. Licensing of insurance agents
c. Overseeing banking regulations
d. Providing consumer education by answering general insurance questions.
#SPJ4
TRUE OR FALSE a long-arm statue allows a state to obtain jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when the nonresident defendant has sufficient contacts with the state.
If a nonresident defendant has enough connections to the state, a long-arm statute enables the state to assert jurisdiction over them. This statement is true.
A long-arm statute allows a state to obtain jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when the nonresident defendant has sufficient contact with the state.
Long-arm statutes are laws that permit a state to assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in certain circumstances.
According to this legislation, a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant has a specific number of minimal connections to the state and the continuation of the lawsuit does not violate established principles of substantial justice and fair play.
To learn more about jurisdiction
https://brainly.com/question/12448353
#SPJ4
A long-arm statue allows a state to obtain jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when the nonresident defendant has sufficient contact with the state.
The above statement is True.
Long-arm jurisdiction is the capacity of local courts, whether on a legislative basis or through a court's inherent jurisdiction, to exercise jurisdiction over overseas defendants.
When a nonresident defendant has enough contact with the state, a long-arm legislation enables the state to establish jurisdiction over them.
Long-arm statutes are legal provisions that, under certain conditions, allow a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.
A state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant under this legislation provided the defendant has a certain number of minimum links to the state and the ongoing litigation does not contravene recognised standards of substantial justice and fair play.
For more questions on Long-arm jurisdiction
https://brainly.com/question/15025171
#SPJ4
a week after the close of discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the defendant was negligent. with the motion, the plaintiff filed (i) his own sworn affidavit, which stated that the traffic signal was green as he entered the intersection; (ii) an affidavit of a witness who was driving the car behind him, which stated that the witness saw the entire incident and that the plaintiff's traffic signal was green as he approached and entered the intersection; and (iii) an affidavit of another witness, which stated that she saw the entire incident and that the defendant's signal had been red for several seconds before the defendant entered the intersection and was still red when the defendant entered the intersection. in response to the motion, the defendant filed his own affidavit which stated that he does not recall seeing the traffic signal before entering the intersection, but believes that it was not red. he also filed the affidavit of a pedestrian on the scene. the pedestrian stated that she did not see the traffic signal prior to the accident, but that another passerby told her that the traffic signal was yellow for both drivers. how should the court rule on the plaintiff's motion?
The court rule on the plaintiff's motion in the following way
The court should consider all the evidence and affidavits presented by both parties when ruling on the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The court will likely give more weight to the affidavits of witnesses who saw the entire incident, as they provide more specific and detailed information about what happened. The affidavit of the defendant, stating that he does not recall seeing the traffic signal and believes it was not red, may be given less weight as it is based on his own recollection and not on direct observation. The affidavit of the pedestrian, stating that she did not see the traffic signal and that another passerby told her it was yellow, may also be given less weight as it is based on hearsay. Ultimately, the court will make a determination based on the preponderance of the evidence presented.
To learn more about affidavits Click
https://brainly.com/question/13085170
#SPJ4
In Chapter 1, the concept of “Transcommunication” was discussed along with the two components that support it. Discuss the two and how differentiate how each contributes to ensuring the relationship to the transportation support system.
Access to additional markets is facilitated by better transportation infrastructure, and since efficient transportation is less expensive, it is also used more frequently.
What is infrastructure?Infrastructure is referred to as the fundamental physical framework of an organization, region, or country. It frequently pertains to the creation of public goods or industrial activities.
Infrastructure projects are typically expensive and capital-intensive, yet they are essential to the growth and success of an area's economy. Public, private, or public-private partnerships may all be used to finance projects including infrastructure upgrades.
Infrastructure refers to a wide range of systems and structures that need physical components, such as the electrical grid that runs throughout a city, state, or nation.
As a part of their efforts to expand their businesses, private firms will occasionally decide to invest in a nation's infrastructure development. Transportation, communication, sewage, water, and educational infrastructure are a few examples.
Learn more about infrastructure, here
https://brainly.com/question/14527131
#SPJ1
In a suit against Karen, Luke obtains an injunction. This is
a. the cancellation of a contract.
b. a payment of money.
c. a departure from precedent.
d. an order to do or to refrain from doing a certain act.
In a suit against Karen, Luke obtained an injunction, which is an order to do or refrain from doing a certain act . An order is an instruction that requires either doing a certain act or refraining from doing it.
Such an order has to be followed strictly in order to comply with the law and avoid any legal complications. Furthermore, it is essential to be aware of the consequences of not following the order, which could include fines, imprisonment or both. Therefore, it is important to take such orders seriously and adhere to them both timely and responsibly. Injunctions are legal orders issued by a court of law, requiring someone to do or refrain from doing a specific act. These orders are generally used to prevent an individual from causing another person harm, or from committing a particular act. Injunctions can be either temporary or permanent, depending on the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, they are often used to prevent harassment, threats, or other abuse. Ultimately, injunctions are an important part of the legal system, helping to protect the rights of individuals and ensure that justice is served.
Learn more about injunction here
https://brainly.com/question/15089489
#SPJ4
If a grand jury finds that probable cause exists, they will issue a(n) ____________ against the defendant.
If a grand jury finds that probable cause exists, they will issue an indictment against the defendant.
If a grand jury determines that there is enough evidence to reasonably believe that a crime has been committed, they will issue an indictment against the defendant. This is known as finding probable cause.
The grand jury's purpose is to weigh the evidence and decide whether there is sufficient cause to formally accuse the defendant of the alleged crime. An indictment is a formal accusation made against an individual or group by a grand jury or other legal body. It is a statement of the alleged crime, which must be proven in court.
To know more about jury, click here.
https://brainly.com/question/9788151
#SPJ4
he defendant is on trial for nighttime breaking and entering of a warehouse. The warehouse owner had set up a camera to take infrared pictures of any intruders. After an expert establishes the reliability of infrared photography, the prosecutor offers the authenticated infrared picture of the intruder to show the similarities to the defendant. The defendant's counsel objects to the admission of the photographs.
How should the court rule?
The court should rule on the admissibility of the infrared photographs based on their relevance and reliability.
If the expert witness has established the reliability of the infrared photography and the prosecution can show that the photograph is relevant to the case and that it sufficiently resembles the defendant, the court should admit the photograph into evidence. However, if there are issues with the reliability of the photograph or if it is not relevant to the case, the court should sustain the objection and exclude the photograph from evidence.
Find out more about defendant
brainly.com/question/28096048
#SPJ4
What are the rules regarding the Griffin v. State case?
Evidence adequate to establish a determination that the subject matter is what its proponent asserts, to ensure trustworthiness, satisfies the criterion of authentication or identity as a condition antecedent to admissibility.
What is a subject matter?A subject-matter expert is someone who has extensive knowledge in a particular field or topic, and this level of knowledge is demonstrated by the person's degree, licensure, and/or through years of professional experience with the subject.
For example, a person with a PhD in chemistry could easily be referred to as a SME in chemistry, or a person with a Second Class Radio Telegraph License issued by the national licensing body (the Federal Communications Commission in the United States and the International Telecommunication Union in other countries.
A master's degree holder in electronic engineering could be regarded as an authority on the field.
Learn more about subject matter, here
https://brainly.com/question/29309537
#SPJ1
An effective punishment:
a. eventually becomes ineffective
b. causes physical pain
c. reduces the likelihood that a behavior will occur in the future
d. follows a reinforcer
The correct option is (C), an effective punishment reduces the likelihood that a behavior will occur in the future.
A person may face legal punishment as judged by a court of law if they break the law by committing a crime or misdemeanor, failing to fulfill a legal obligation, or both. When punishment is used for revenge, incapacitation, or deterrence, it is permissible. The deterrence argument contends that if an offender is punished, both the perpetrator and those who emulate him will be deterred from committing other crimes.
A person learns that a particular action is wrong since it has led to the addition of something unpleasant through positive punishment. Applying positive punishment can help to cut down on undesired behavior. The goal is to create new behaviors that will promote prosperity and improve environmental adaptation in humans.
To learn more about Positive punishment, click here:
https://brainly.com/question/13025873
#SPJ4
Many people today who have been harmed by criminals prefer the term survivor rather than victim because it implies empowerment rather than powerlessness
TrueFalse
Today, many victims of crime choose the term "survivor" over "victim" since it denotes strength rather than helplessness. This statement is true.
Many people who have been harmed by criminals prefer the term "survivor" rather than "victim" because it implies empowerment rather than powerlessness.
The term "victim" can carry connotations of passivity and helplessness, whereas the term "survivor" implies resilience and strength. Using the term "survivor" can help to shift the focus from the harm that was done to the person to the person's ability to overcome that harm and move forward.
It's also important to note that not all individuals who have experienced a crime or harm may identify with being a "victim" or "survivor" and It's important to respect the individual's choice of terminology and understanding.
To learn more about victims
https://brainly.com/question/16753842
#SPJ4
Many people today who have been harmed by criminals prefer the term survivor rather than victim because it implies empowerment rather than powerlessness.
The above statement is True.
Many victims of criminal activity prefer the term "survivor" over "victim" since it suggests empowerment rather than helplessness.
The terms "survivor" and "victim" imply strength and resilience, respectively, but the term "victim" might imply passivity and weakness. By referring to someone as a "survivor," we may change the emphasis from the harm they experienced to their ability to recover and go on.
It's also crucial to remember that not everyone who has been harmed or the victim of a crime would identify as a "victim" or "survivor," therefore it's crucial to respect the individual's choice of language and understanding.
For more questions on Victim
https://brainly.com/question/22441291
#SPJ4
suppose a u.s. resident buys a jaguar automobile from great britain and the british exporter uses the receipts to buy stock in general electric. which of the following statements is true from the perspective of the united states?
Suppose a US resident buys Jaguar automobiles from Great Britain and uses the receipts to buy stock in British exporter General Electric. This is true as net exports increase and net capital inflows decrease from the US perspective. Here option C is the correct answer.
From the perspective of the United States, net exports have risen as a result of the purchase of the Jaguar automobile by the U.S. resident. This is because U.S. resident is importing a product from Great Britain, which increases the country's net exports.
Net capital outflow, on the other hand, falls because the British exporter is using the proceeds of the sale to buy stock in General Electric, rather than using it to invest in the U.S. economy. This is considered a capital outflow as the money is leaving the US economy.
Complete question:
Suppose a US resident buys a Jaguar automobile from Great Britain and the British exporter uses the receipts to buy stock in General Electric. Which of the following statements is true from the perspective of the US?
A. net exports fall, and net capital outflow falls
b. net exports rise, and net capital outflow rises
C. net exports rise, and net capital outflow falls
D. net exports rise, and net capital outflow falls
E. none of the above are true
To learn more about net capital
https://brainly.com/question/13004917
#SPJ4
Let's say a US citizen purchases a Jaguar car from the UK and then uses the revenues to purchase shares in British exporter General Electric. This is valid from the standpoint of the US, where net exports are rising and net capital inflows are falling. Here, solution C is the right one.
The best way to calculate a broker dealer's liquidity, or their capacity to transform current assets and liabilities into net cash in the case of a liquidation, is to calculate their net capital.
In addition to being a FINRA-regulated Title III Funding Portal (Reg CF) and being affiliated with a broker-dealer to provide accredited investors with Reg D investments through "parallel offers," Netcapital is also registered with the SEC as a Title III Funding Portal (Reg CF).
The purchase of the Jaguar car by the American resident has increased net exports from the standpoint of the United States. This is because a British product is being imported by Americans, increasing the nation's net exports.
On the other hand, net capital outflow decreases as a result of the British exporter utilising the sale profits to purchase General Electric shares rather than investing in the American economy. Considering that the money is leaving the US economy, this is regarded as a capital outflow.
For more questions on net capital
brainly.com/question/13004917
#SPJ4
Complete question:
Suppose a US resident buys a Jaguar automobile from Great Britain and the British exporter uses the receipts to buy stock in General Electric. Which of the following statements is true from the perspective of the US?
A. net exports fall, and net capital outflow falls
B. net exports rise, and net capital outflow rises
C. net exports rise, and net capital outflow falls
D. net exports rise, and net capital outflow falls
E. none of the above are true
which amendment said that citizens may not be prevented from voting because of race or previous status as a slave?
since the classic study the american voter was published in the 1950s, the percentage of voters who could be classified as ideologues has ______.
since the classic study the american voter was published in the 1950s, the percentage of voters who could be classified as ideologues has: Increased.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 contained arrangements notwithstanding separation and isolation in schooling, public offices, occupations, and lodging. It set out the Equivalent Business Freedom Commission to guarantee fair recruiting practices, and laid out a federal Community Relations Administration to help nearby networks with civil rights issues. The bill likewise approved the US Office of Training to convey a monetary guide to networks attempting to integrate public schools.^22 squared
After an alliance of strict gatherings, worker's guilds, and civil rights associations mounted a serious grassroots work to campaign support for the bill, the Senate at long last passed it on June 11, by a vote of 73 to 27.
to know more about Civil Right act click here:
https://brainly.com/question/1094200
#SPJ4
which government principle is illustrated in this diagram?
The Constitution is founded on seven fundamental principles. Popular sovereignty, limited government, separation of powers, federalism, checks and balances, republicanism, and individual rights are examples of these principles.
One of the fundamental principles of the United States government is popular sovereignty. The people (or citizens) are the ultimate source of government power under popular sovereignty. This means that the government can only function with the consent and authority of the people. "We the People" - affirm that the United States government exists to serve its citizens.
Article I recognizes the supremacy of the people through their elected representatives by establishing a Congress comprised of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Here are some examples of how the various branches collaborate:
The legislative branch creates laws, but the President in the executive branch has the authority to veto those laws through a Presidential Veto. Although the legislative branch creates laws, the judicial branch has the authority to declare those laws unconstitutional.
Learn more about legislative from here;
https://brainly.com/question/24366039
#SPJ4
Complete Question:
Which principle of the United States Constitution is shown in the diagram?
Answer choices
(1) Limited government
(2) Separation of powers
(3) Federalism
(4) Checks and balances
which state level governmental body has a similar power and structure to that of he united states congress?
Similar in power and organization to the US Congress, legislatures are the state level governing body.
Which municipal job is closest to that of Congress?No matter their size, state legislatures frequently do tasks like these that the US Congress does, like: Enacting laws. the public's best interests are being protected. choosing a course of action for issues raised by members or received from the executive.
What department of government creates laws at the state level?Each of the 50 state legislatures is composed of elected representatives who develop legislation that becomes law by taking into account ideas put forth by its own members or by the governor. Along with adopting a state's budget, the legislature also proposes tax laws and articles of impeachment.
Learn more about legislatures: https://brainly.com/question/2880693
#SPJ1
which of the following statements best explains how this 1894 political cartoon of reporters rushing their stories to print applies to news reporting today?
The 1894 political cartoon of reporters rushing their stories to print still applies to news reporting today.
Despite the technological advances made in the media industry, the time-sensitive nature of news reporting remains unchanged; reporters still need to write and submit their pieces as quickly as possible in order to be the first to get their stories out to the public. Additionally, the same sense of urgency still exists for editors to review and approve stories for print, as well as for printers to ensure that the newspapers reach the public in a timely manner. Thus, the 1894 political cartoon still accurately captures the current reality of news reporting today. it highlights the importance of accuracy and speed in news reporting, with reporters competing for both to get the story first and to get it right. Journalists must balance the need for accuracy with the need for speed, or risk having their story overtaken by a competitor. This has been a balancing act for reporters since the dawn of modern journalism, and it is even more imperative in the digital age.
Learn more about political cartoon here
https://brainly.com/question/1545458
#SPJ4
Part A: A man proposes to a woman. She says “Yes”, and the man gives her a $5,000 diamond engagement ring. Later on, the woman breaks up with the man. Is the woman required to give back the diamond engagement ring to the man? Why or Why not?
Part B: A man proposes to a woman. She says “Yes”, and the man gives her a diamond engagement ring. Later on, the man breaks up with the woman. Is the woman required to give back the diamond engagement ring to the man? Why or Why Not?
Whether or not the woman is required to give back the diamond engagement ring to the man would depend on the laws of the jurisdiction in which the couple resides.
The same legal principle applies as in part A.
What is engagement?Part A: In common law jurisdictions, an engagement ring is considered a conditional gift and the woman would be required to return the ring if the condition of marriage is not fulfilled.
However, in some jurisdictions, the ring is considered a gift and the woman would be entitled to keep it regardless of whether the marriage takes place.
Part B: If the man breaks up with the woman, in common law jurisdiction, the woman would be entitled to keep the ring as the condition of marriage is not fulfilled and it would be considered a gift but again, laws of the jurisdiction where the couple resides would be applicable.
Read more about engagement
https://brainly.com/question/8081362
#SPJ1
(T or F) The tort of malicious prosecution affords a remedy when the defendant mounted a wrongful and unjustifiable civil suit against the plaintiff.
True: The tort of malicious prosecution affords a remedy when a defendant has wrongfully and unjustifiably commenced a civil suit against the plaintiff, providing a true and effective means of redress.
In such a case, the plaintiff can seek damages for the damages they have suffered as a result of the malicious prosecution. Consequently, it is important to understand the law of malicious prosecution in order to appropriately seek a remedy when necessary. Specifically, this remedy is granted when the defendant has acted with malice and without reasonable cause in launching the civil suit. This provides the plaintiff with the ability to seek recompense for damages incurred as a result of the wrongful action.
Malicious prosecution is a tort wherein a person wrongfully brings a criminal or civil action against another party without probable cause, with malicious intent, and with the intent to cause harm. The tort of malicious prosecution is designed to protect individuals from being wrongfully accused of a crime or subjected to an abusive legal process. It serves to deter individuals from bringing malicious and unwarranted criminal or civil actions and to provide some recompense to those harmed by malicious prosecutions. Furthermore, it serves to protect the public from the harms of such malicious and unwarranted prosecutions.
Learn more about the tort of malicious prosecution here
https://brainly.com/question/14880281
#SPJ4
which constitutional amendments related to the court system are important to understand for someone working in the field of criminal justice?
fill in the blank. he state senator was found guilty of___when she tried to overcharge for licenses and permits from an international business that wanted to open a manufacturing plant in her state. multiple choice public transparency public action private violation private theft foreign corrupt practices
The state senator was found guilty of public action when she tried to overcharge for licenses and permits from an international business that wanted to open a manufacturing plant in her state.
Public action is any action taken by a government or other organization that affects the public. This can include policy decisions, regulations, laws, and other initiatives that are intended to have a positive impact on society.
Public action can also involve the mobilization of citizens to participate in activities that can benefit the public. Blatant violation of the public trust goes beyond a mere lapse in judgment, and the guilty verdict shows that there are consequences for those who attempt to use their public office for personal gain.
Hence, the correct option is "SECOND".
To know more about senator, click here.
https://brainly.com/question/29787372
#SPJ4
To become a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), an individual must meet the following requirements (select all that apply):
obtain a certain number of college credits in accounting courses
pass the Uniform CPA Examination
prepare taxes for individuals and corporations demonstrate good personal character
In order to become a certified public accountant, an individual must meet certain requirements.
These requirements include passing the Uniform CPA Examination, completing a bachelor's degree with 150 semester hours of college credit, and meeting work experience requirements.
Some states also require CPAs to complete continuing education credits on a yearly basis in order to maintain their certification. To become a certified public accountant (CPA), an individual must have a four-year degree in accounting from an accredited college or university and pass the Uniform CPA Examination administered by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Once these requirements are met, CPAs are required to complete continuing education on a regular basis to maintain their license.
Learn more about Certified Public Accountant (CPA) here
https://brainly.com/question/19066091
#SPJ4
a contractor, who is white, was indicted by a state grand jury for bribery of a public official. all non-white jurors were intentionally excluded from the grand jury. as a consequence, the contractor sought to quash the indictment, but she was unsuccessful. the contractor was tr
The appellate court reverse the contractor's conviction because option B. Yes, because the rights of the members of the excluded racial group were violated under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Despite not belonging to the excluded racial group of whites, a defendant who is indicted by a grand jury from whose members have been purposefully excluded has standing to assert Equal Protection claims on their behalf.
Trial courts are placed above appellate courts so that they can evaluate their work and make any necessary corrections. Rather than the single judge who normally preside over a trial court, appellate courts are frequently college bodies with multiple judges.
The question is incomplete, find the complete question here
a contractor, who is white, was indicted by a state grand jury for bribery of a public official. all non-white jurors were intentionally excluded from the grand jury. as a consequence, the contractor sought to quash the indictment, but she was unsuccessful. the contractor was trying to appeal court which than found that the exclusion was harmless error with respect to the contractor's conviction.
Should the appellate court reverse the contractor's conviction?
A. Yes, because there is a constitutional right to a grand jury indictment.
B. Yes, because the rights of the members of the excluded racial group were violated under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. No, because the exclusion of the racial group was harmless error with regard to the contractor's conviction.
D. No, because the contractor lacks standing to challenge the exclusion of members of another race from the grand jury that indicted her.
To learn more about appellate courts here
brainly.com/question/13944421
#SPJ4